Paul Henry did an interview in a restaurant and at one point commented on a woman at a neighbouring table saying she had ‘the perfect titties’ and exchanging some further related thoughts with his female publicist. The feminist brigade have responded with outrage while white knights such as Brian Edwards have also waded in. Readers’ responses seemed about evenly divided. Many noted the hypocrisy of feminists who would criticize a male for ‘objectifying’ a woman but never mention that women also frequently comment on men’s physical attributes. It seems that if ‘objectifying’ comments are made with poetic, indirect or euphemistic language by men or if made by women using any language, that’s ok. Others have disputed the idea that most women might be expected to find admiring comments like that unwelcome. After all, attrractive women wield a great deal of power from their sexual appeal and can easily turn that into significant profit, so why would they object to men’s admiration of the physical appeal they work so hard to bolster?

We believe everyone has the right to state they are offended by Henry’s comments or anyone else’s comments, and to express their preferences regarding how others behave. However, demanding that others conform to your preferences is a step too far, while irrational, false and/or socially destructive responses deserve to be challenged.

For example, Jane Drumm from ‘Shine’ was reported as calling Henry’s comment a “nasty comment”. This is plain wrong. If someone likes the look of something and calls that ‘perfect’, how on earth could that be perceived as nasty? Only the most creatively feminist mind could possibly believe that. What is truly nasty is misrepresenting another person’s comment and sullying his intention by using the word ‘nasty’. Attacking someone’s well-intentioned comment by deliberately using the manipulative and misleading propaganda term ‘nasty’ shows seriously flawed ethics, much more socially dangerous than Henry’s comments could ever be.

Jane Drumm also claimed that Henry had showed “a sense of superiority which was at the root of violence against women”. This is false propaganda that is not based on research highlighting the many and varied causal factors in violence towards women (not to mention men). It’s simply false and manipulative to try to associate an admiring comment about a woman’s attractiveness with ‘violence against women’. That the admiring comment used schoolboy language in no way makes that association more valid. It’s dangerous for a society to condone misrepresentation of this kind for propaganda purposes. The outcomes can be expected to include deepened social division and ineffective or harmful law and policy. Causing such social damage is far more seriously unethical than making an unsophisticated comment that some others feel offended by.

Louise Nicholas claimed that Henry “clearly needed more education”. Yes well that’s what we hear from totalitarian states throughout history. The brain washing that causes adherence to feminist reasoning and ideology would impress the most successful dictators intent on ensuring obedience to their regimes.

Ms Nicholas also implied that Henry’s comment caused “verbal harm” that was “just as traumatic” as physical harm. It didn’t matter that the person Henry’s admiring comment was about didn’t even hear it, didn’t know about it or know it referred to her. Here again we see the propaganda of exaggerated language and false association. To suggest that an admiring comment about a woman’s physical appearance can be compared with physical violence is ridiculous in the extreme, but it’s all grist for the feminist mill. For feminists there’s no problem with dishonesty as long as it serves their propaganda purposes.

Both Ms Nicholas and Ms Drumm appear to see no problem with making comments about Henry that were deliberately demeaning and patronizing. Ms Nicholas graciously pronounced that she didn’t think Henry should lose his career due to his comment but needed more education; oh, why, thanks so much merciful emperor! Ms Drumm said “I feel really sorry for Paul that he has got to his age and he’s so angry and so flippant about other people and because that just means that he’s such a lonely person”. Surely that amounts to emotional violence much worse than an admiring comment about a woman’s appearance. Oh yes, but their white ribbons remind us that violence matters when it’s done towards women but it’s ok when women do it towards men.

The femaleist response to Henry’s admiring comment generally showed disregard for really important values and social ethics in order to prioritize much less important and highly questionable ones created by the religion of feminism. They disregard the right to free speech and free thought, seeking to censor men’s communication towards the dubious goal of protecting women from possibly feeling offended. They disregard the value of tolerance for difference, demanding that men’s interests be the same as that for women or at least consistent with the feminist religion. They disregard the values of honesty and fairness, believing it’s ok to misrepresent men, their behaviour and the research that has elucidated the phenomena they are commenting on. They go to great effort to express their deep indignation about a man’s admiring comment regarding an attractive female, whilst ignoring really important gender issues such as gender disparity in suicide, in arrest and sentencing, in workplace deaths, in homelessness and in life span. In summary, the feminist response to Henry’s comment highlights the poor, self-focused and socially dangerous ethics of femaleism.